Sanyou client: Shandong XX Electromechanical Co., Ltd.
Trial organ: Supreme People's Court
Trial result: The court of first instance found that the technical solutions of the accused infringing product manufactured and sold by Shandong XX Electromechanical Co., Ltd. in Shandong was different, at least in more than 1 technical features, from the recorded technical features in patent claim 1, and thereby did not fall within the protection scope of the patent claim 1 involved. The infringement claimed by YY Electromechanical Co., Ltd. was not established. The court rejected the lawsuit request of a YY Electromechanical Co., Ltd.
The Supreme People's Court held in the trial of second instance that the original court's ruling that the accused infringing product did not fall within the protection scope of claim 1 of the patent involved was not inappropriate. The original judgment found that the facts were clear, the application of law was correct, and should be upheld.
Case facts
Shandong XX Electromechanical Co., Ltd. was established in 2005 and is a national high-tech enterprise that integrates scientific research, manufacturing, sales, and services. It has been committed to the research and development of technical products such as equipment migration and cable storage for coal mine underground comprehensive mining working platforms, providing integrated solutions for coal mines.
This case involves an invention patent of "a cable support vehicle for coal mining tunnels". Inner Mongolia YY Machinery Processing Co., Ltd. claimed that the cable support vehicle produced and sold by Sanyou’s client infringed on its invention patent right and had filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Baotou City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.
After accepting the commission of Shandong XX Electromechanical Co., Ltd., Sanyou attorneys conducted a detailed study on the accused infringing products and invention patents involved, and formulated a targeted and detailed non infringement defense strategy. The courts of first and second instance both accepted Sanyou’s non infringement defense, determined that the cable support vehicle products produced and sold by our client did not constitute infringement, and rejected all the plaintiff's litigation claims.
Focus of disputes
The main focus of disputes in this case is whether the accused infringing product falls within the protection scope of claim 1 of the patent involved.
According to legal regulations, the scope of protection for invention patent rights is based on the content of their claims, and the description and accompanying drawings can be used to explain the content of the claims.
The people's court shall examine all technical features recorded in the claims claimed by the right holder when determining whether the accused infringing technical solution falls within the scope of patent protection. If the technical features of the accused infringing technical solution are compared to all the technical features recorded in the claims, and there is a lack of more than one technical feature recorded in the claims, or if there is more than one technical feature that is different or not equivalent, the people's court shall determine that it does not fall within the scope of patent protection.
After in-depth research and analysis of the product by Sanyou’s attorneys and client’s technical personnel, Sanyou identified multiple technical features of the accused infringing technical solutions that are different from those of involved patent claim 1 within the meaning of patent law.
Furthermore, the more specific focus of disputes in this case lies in whether these distinct technical features constitute equivalence. Firstly, Sanyou attorneys found evidence from various sources to accurately define the scope of protection for the claims in terms of interpretation of the terms used in the claims.
Meanwhile, the differences between these technical features and the technical features defined in claim 1 of the involved patent in terms of the technical means used, the functions achieved, and the effects achieved were discussed in detail. The court ultimately accepted Sanyou’s claim that these technical features do not constitute equivalent technical features.
Typical significance
With increasing protection of intellectual property rights in China, the number of patent civil disputes is growing on a daily basis. In patent infringement litigation, as the party accused of infringement, non-infringement defense is the most common form of defense.
In the non-infringement defense of this case, Sanyou attorneys conducted in-depth and detailed research on the accused infringing product and the involved patent. Sanyou attorneys flexibly applied the principles and methods of interpretation of claims, the rules of interpretation of technical terms, the principle of estoppel, and the exclusion rules of patent background technical solutions. Sanyou attorneys cleverly used the prior invalidity decision of the involved patent and the invalidity decision as key evidence. Following the statement of the patentee in the invalidation procedure and the relevant determination of CNIPA, Sanyou successfully organized a series of defense reasons for the alleged infringing products not falling into the scope of patent protection involved.
The court finally determined Sanyou’s defense of non-infringement to be valid. This case provides a reference for proposing non-infringement defenses from multiple perspectives.
